Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Heracles 417]

Number 6 I don't have time to write things to a fifth grade level or explaining it in detail for some on VJ to understand.

I read those sweeping statements and see a fifth grade rationale behind them... I wouldn't delude yourself that those generalities are 1) profound and 2) qualifiable.

Likewise. All I ever see from you is left wing rhetoric. As soon as you see one of your buddies jump on a bandwagon issue, you right there throwing it out. Lets take your previous post for example. Explain to me what a coup in 1953 has to do with the US selling Saddam weapons to fight Iran in 1980??

The anti-west hatred is nothing new. The most visible nation is always made out to be the scapegoat.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lets take your previous post for example. Explain to me what a coup in 1953 has to do with the US selling Saddam weapons to fight Iran in 1980??

I think the point is self-evident - the continuity of history. Iran was knocked over in 1953 to install a puppet govt (dictator) who would provide favourable access to the country’s oil interests. That govt is subsequently overthrown in 1979 on a tide of resurgent nationalism, and the US then turns to their neighbour, a secular dictator for much the same reason (access to Iraqi oil) and to provide a buffer against the new Iranian govt that is now (surprisingly) hostile to US interests.

You might see coincidence there - I see causality. I see bad foreign policy being used to counter the effects of bad foreign policy from decades past. Not hard to understand. Anything more specific and we will be getting into fifth-grade hand-holding...

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[Heracles 417]

Number 6 I don't have time to write things to a fifth grade level or explaining it in detail for some on VJ to understand.

I read those sweeping statements and see a fifth grade rationale behind them... I wouldn't delude yourself that those generalities are 1) profound and 2) qualifiable.

The thing about liberal beliefs is that you guys tend to spend a lot of time personally attacking someone. Yet if someone like Anne Coulter disses it back, forgetaboutit she is a ######, a ho, ruthless, heartless etc etc etc..

Another example comes to mind. Keith Olbermann a liberal talk show host on MSNBC. He spends most of his time, on his show, criticizing other people. Rarely says anything worth listening too apart from insults to people he disagrees with. John Stewart is pretty much the same.

At least someone like Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly are passionate about their views. In contrast very little, if any, time is spent personally attacking others with differing views on their shows.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At least someone like Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly are passionate about their views. In contrast very little, if any, time is spent personally attacking others with differing views on their shows.

I think that qualifies as the most ridiculous post in the thread. If you believe that - that says to me that you really haven't watched much O'Reilly...

And Anne Coulter 'dishing it back'. From what I've seen (ranging from her column, TV appearances - even the titles of her books) - her entire public persona relies on the use of ad-hominem arguments.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[Peikko 1,575]

What I have issue with is the double standards. On the one hand, you are outraged at the deaths of 'innocent civilians' in acts of terror like 9/11 and suicide bombing, but on the other hand you are frustrated because the US/West can't employ 'dirty' tactics to be on a level playing field with the guerrillas. Either you think both are an outrage or neither are. War is a pretty crude method of problem solving but sadly we haven't come up with a better way of doing things in 2000 + years. Sad indictment of the human race in my opinion.

I have also yet to see an explanation of how, for example, dropping bombs on Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. I do accept that at the time it was deemed militarily expedient, however, it's hard to argue that the needs of the thousands of civilians living in the area were put before the needs of the allied forces.

My point being, nobody comes out of war with clean hands.

[almaty 19]

At least someone like Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly are passionate about their views. In contrast very little, if any, time is spent personally attacking others with differing views on their shows.

I think that qualifies as the most ridiculous post in the thread. If you believe that - that says to me that you really haven't watched much O'Reilly...

And Anne Coulter 'dishing it back'. From what I've seen (ranging from her column, TV appearances - even the titles of her books) - her entire public persona relies on the use of ad-hominem arguments.

i agree..

[Heracles 417]

Lets take your previous post for example. Explain to me what a coup in 1953 has to do with the US selling Saddam weapons to fight Iran in 1980??

I think the point is self-evident - the continuity of history. Iran was knocked over in 1953 to install a puppet govt (dictator) who would provide favourable access to the country’s oil interests. That govt is subsequently overthrown in 1979 on a tide of resurgent nationalism, and the US then turns to their neighbour, a secular dictator for much the same reason (access to Iraqi oil) and to provide a buffer against the new Iranian govt that is now (surprisingly) hostile to US interests.

You might see coincidence there - I see causality. I see bad foreign policy being used to counter the effects of bad foreign policy from decades past. Not hard to understand. Anything more specific and we will be getting into fifth-grade hand-holding...

I don't know about you but if some other nation held 66 diplomats and citizens for over 444 days as hostages I would be pissed.

Maybe you should also ask why did the American and ENGLISH government orchestrate the coup.

1950s

In March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated. In April, the Iranian parliament passed a bill to nationalize the oil industry. This was undertaken with the guidance of western-educated Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, at that time a member of the parliament, who believed that nationalization was the only way to provide prosperity and national sovereignty for the Iranian people. By May, Mossadegh had been elected Prime Minister by the parliament.

The newly state-owned oil company saw a dramatic drop in production as a result of Iranian inexperience and the AIOC-mandated policy that British technicians not work with the newly created National Iranian Oil Company. This resulted in the Abadan Crisis, a situation that was further aggravated by its export markets being closed when the British Navy imposed a blockade around the country in order to force the Iranian state to abandon the effort to nationalize its nation's oil. Oil revenues to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the state's coffers rather than into the hands of foreign oil companies.

The United Kingdom took a case against the nationalization to the International Court of Justice at The Hague on behalf of AIOC, but lost the case. The government of Britain was concerned about its interests in Iran, and laboring under a misconception that Iran's nationalist movement was Soviet-backed. Eventually, Great Britain persuaded U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was slowly coming under Soviet influence. This was an effective strategy for the British, since it exploited America's Cold War mindset. U.S. President Harry S. Truman never agreed to the British proposal to oust Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq. But in 1953, General Dwight Eisenhower became the President of the United States, and the British convinced the new American administration to join them in overthrowing a democratically elected government and re-establishing British control of Iranian oil.

At least someone like Glenn Beck or Bill O'reilly are passionate about their views. In contrast very little, if any, time is spent personally attacking others with differing views on their shows.

I think that qualifies as the most ridiculous post in the thread. If you believe that - that says to me that you really haven't watched much O'Reilly...

And Anne Coulter 'dishing it back'. From what I've seen (ranging from her column, TV appearances - even the titles of her books) - her entire public persona relies on the use of ad-hominem arguments.

Why what is wrong with him voicing his opinion on issues?? Watch an episode of Keith Olbermann and then you tell me if there is a difference between his show to O'reillys.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Lets take your previous post for example. Explain to me what a coup in 1953 has to do with the US selling Saddam weapons to fight Iran in 1980??

I think the point is self-evident - the continuity of history. Iran was knocked over in 1953 to install a puppet govt (dictator) who would provide favourable access to the country’s oil interests. That govt is subsequently overthrown in 1979 on a tide of resurgent nationalism, and the US then turns to their neighbour, a secular dictator for much the same reason (access to Iraqi oil) and to provide a buffer against the new Iranian govt that is now (surprisingly) hostile to US interests.

You might see coincidence there - I see causality. I see bad foreign policy being used to counter the effects of bad foreign policy from decades past. Not hard to understand. Anything more specific and we will be getting into fifth-grade hand-holding...

I don't know about you but if some other nation held 66 diplomats and citizens for over 444 days as hostages I would be pissed.

Maybe you should also ask why did the American and ENGLISH government orchestrated the coup.

1950s

In March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated. In April, the Iranian parliament passed a bill to nationalize the oil industry. This was undertaken with the guidance of western-educated Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, at that time a member of the parliament, who believed that nationalization was the only way to provide prosperity and national sovereignty for the Iranian people. By May, Mossadegh had been elected Prime Minister by the parliament.

The newly state-owned oil company saw a dramatic drop in production as a result of Iranian inexperience and the AIOC-mandated policy that British technicians not work with the newly created National Iranian Oil Company. This resulted in the Abadan Crisis, a situation that was further aggravated by its export markets being closed when the British Navy imposed a blockade around the country in order to force the Iranian state to abandon the effort to nationalize its nation's oil. Oil revenues to the Iranian government were significantly higher than before nationalization, since nationalization, by definition, caused oil profits to be directed into the state's coffers rather than into the hands of foreign oil companies.

The United Kingdom took a case against the nationalization to the International Court of Justice at The Hague on behalf of AIOC, but lost the case. The government of Britain was concerned about its interests in Iran, and laboring under a misconception that Iran's nationalist movement was Soviet-backed. Eventually, Great Britain persuaded U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Iran was slowly coming under Soviet influence. This was an effective strategy for the British, since it exploited America's Cold War mindset. U.S. President Harry S. Truman never agreed to the British proposal to oust Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq. But in 1953, General Dwight Eisenhower became the President of the United States, and the British convinced the new American administration to join them in overthrowing a democratically elected government and re-establishing British control of Iranian oil.

Is the mention of the UK Govts intended to suggest that I should find the policy somehow less offensive. It doesn't I'm afraid (being well aware of the UK's less than salubrious imperial past).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why what is wrong with him voicing his opinion on issues?? Watch an episode of Keith Olbermann and then you tell me if there is a difference between his show to O'reillys.

I didn't say that was anything wrong with him voicing his opinion - merely challenging your statement that O'Reilly's show (I haven't watched Olbermann) doesn't rely largely, if not exclusively on ridiculing his guests.

[Heracles 417]

What I have issue with is the double standards. On the one hand, you are outraged at the deaths of 'innocent civilians' in acts of terror like 9/11 and suicide bombing, but on the other hand you are frustrated because the US/West can't employ 'dirty' tactics to be on a level playing field with the guerrillas. Either you think both are an outrage or neither are. War is a pretty crude method of problem solving but sadly we haven't come up with a better way of doing things in 2000 + years. Sad indictment of the human race in my opinion.

I have also yet to see an explanation of how, for example, dropping bombs on Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. I do accept that at the time it was deemed militarily expedient, however, it's hard to argue that the needs of the thousands of civilians living in the area were put before the needs of the allied forces.

My point being, nobody comes out of war with clean hands.

Gotta love the left. If someone physically attacked you what would you do? Would you say please sir that is not civilized or would you defend yourself??

Your point is clearly that there are other ways to do things rather than use physical force. Which is all good and well but what do you do in a case where someone does not agree with your point of view, especially Osama, and actually believes your death increases his chance of going to heaven..

[Caladan 19]

If someone attacked me I sure as hell wouldn't go and smack someone else unrelated.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I am sure there are a lot of dead civilians who are very glad to hear that.

i'm sure a lot of our service men & woman would be thrilled to know you think of them as crazy barbarians. especially since they are fighting a war to keep your azz safe & free to bash them on an internet message board.

What makes an American life anymore valuable than a life of an Iraqi?

If the average American is more educated than the average Iraqi, his/her life is more valuable.

so then, by that logic, do you also think that the life of an American that is more educated than another American is also more valuable?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I have issue with is the double standards. On the one hand, you are outraged at the deaths of 'innocent civilians' in acts of terror like 9/11 and suicide bombing, but on the other hand you are frustrated because the US/West can't employ 'dirty' tactics to be on a level playing field with the guerrillas. Either you think both are an outrage or neither are. War is a pretty crude method of problem solving but sadly we haven't come up with a better way of doing things in 2000 + years. Sad indictment of the human race in my opinion.

I have also yet to see an explanation of how, for example, dropping bombs on Hiroshima was a legitimate military target. I do accept that at the time it was deemed militarily expedient, however, it's hard to argue that the needs of the thousands of civilians living in the area were put before the needs of the allied forces.

My point being, nobody comes out of war with clean hands.

Gotta love the left. If someone physically attacked you what would you do? Would you say please sir that is not civilized or would you defend yourself??

Your point is clearly that there are other ways to do things rather than use physical force. Which is all good and well but what do you do in a case where someone does not agree with your point of view, especially Osama, and actually believes your death increases his chance of going to heaven..

Dunno how you figure that his argument is "leftist". Seems scrupulously neutral to me, but that's just IMO.

[Heracles 417]

Why what is wrong with him voicing his opinion on issues?? Watch an episode of Keith Olbermann and then you tell me if there is a difference between his show to O'reillys.

I didn't say that was anything wrong with him voicing his opinion - merely challenging your statement that O'Reilly's show (I haven't watched Olbermann) doesn't rely largely, if not exclusively on ridiculing his guests.

O'reilly may disagree with his guest but at least he gives them a chance to speak. In comparison, Olbermann just flat out attacks people with differing views with the everyone else is an idiot attitude.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

O'reilly may disagree with his guest but at least he gives them a chance to speak. In comparison, Olbermann just flat out attacks people with differing views with the everyone else is an idiot attitude.

You must mean where he says "you can have the last word" before taking it himself.